Lecture 4 — Consecration of the chalice

^26:27^ And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: drink, all of you, of this. [n. 2191]

^26:28^ For this is my blood of the New Testament, which will be shed for many unto the remission of sins. [n. 2200]

^26:29^ And I say to you, from this time forward, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I will drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. [n. 2203]

2190. Above, he treated of the institution of the new sacrament with regard to the sacrament of the Lord’s body (C. 26, L. 2); here he treats of the institution of the same sacrament with regard to the sacrament of the blood.

And concerning this he does two things:

first, Christ’s deeds are set down;

second, his words, at drink, all of you, of this.

Concerning the first, three deeds are set down:

first, that he took the chalice;

second, that he gave thanks;

third, that he gave to the disciples.

2191. Hence it says, and taking the chalice, which indicates that it was not instituted that the sacrament be done under one appearance, but under two.

And what is the reason for this? One reason is that there are three things in this sacrament: one which is a sacrament only, another which is a reality only, and another which is both sacrament and reality. The appearances of bread and wine are a sacrament only, the spiritual effect is a reality only, and the body contained is both reality and sacrament. If therefore we consider that which is a sacrament only, in this way it is quite fitting that the body be signified under the appearance of bread, and the blood under the appearance of wine, for it is signified as indicating spiritual refreshment; but refreshment is found properly in food and drink. Likewise, if it be taken as both reality and sacrament, it pertains to this that the sacrament is commemorative of the Lord’s passion. And it could not signify better than in this way, that it signify the blood as poured out and separated from the body. It is likewise with regard to that which is taken as reality only, for the blood pertains to the soul, not because the blood is the soul, but because life is preserved in the blood. Hence it signifies that, since this sacrament is for the health of the faithful, the bread is offered for the health of the body, and the blood for the health of the soul. Come, eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mingled for you (Prov 9:5), for this refreshment is with bread and wine. Likewise another reason, because the whole Christ is contained in the body.

2192. What need then is there that the blood be by itself? Hence one should consider what was said above, that one thing is there directly, by the strength of the sacrament, and another by a natural concomitance. The body of Christ is contained under the appearance of bread by the strength of the sacrament, and the blood by concomitance. But it is the other way around with the blood contained under the appearance of wine, for the blood is there by the strength of the sacrament, and the body by concomitance.

Hence when the blood of Christ was poured out on the ground, if the sacrament had been celebrated, the blood would only have been present separately. So, since some had not understood this, they said that this form is continued. Hence they say that when the body is consecrated, the blood is not there until the wine has been consecrated. But this is not so, because if the priest were to die before he consecrated the wine, both the body and the blood would be present in the host.

2193. Likewise, it says, taking the chalice, and does not say, taking the wine, and because of this some have said that the sacrament should be performed with water. And this is ruled out, because there follows, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine. Second, it is clear that it was wine mixed with water. And one reason for this is on the side of the sacrament, for it was going to be celebrated as the Lord instituted. But it is customary in hot regions that wine is not drunk without water; so one should not believe that he confected the sacrament with pure wine. It also befits the thing contained, for this sacrament is commemorative of the Lord’s passion; but from Christ’s side flowed out blood and water, as is said in John (John 19:34).

Likewise, to signify the effect of the sacrament, and this in two ways: for it signifies the memory of Christ’s passion, so it produces in us the effect of Christ’s passion. Now, there are two effects, to purify and to redeem. He redeemed us through his blood; and has redeemed us to God, in your blood (Rev 5:9). Similarly, he purified the unclean; who has loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood (Rev 1:5). And these things were necessary, that he should purify and redeem. And the purification is signified by the water, the redemption by the wine. Likewise, the water signifies the people; many waters, a great people (Rev 17:1). And through this sacrament, the people is united to Christ; so this mixing together of water and wine signifies that the people is united to Christ.

2194. But what happens to the water? Some say that it remains. Others say that it is turned into wine, because when a very little is put in, the species is changed, and thus the whole is converted; and in this way it has to do with a mystery, that the Church’s unity is contained in this sacrament.

2195. Likewise, when it says taking, it signifies that he endured the passion voluntarily; hence, I will take the chalice of salvation; and I will call upon the name of the Lord (Ps 115:4).

2196. Likewise, he gave thanks. And for what? For the sign, and for the thing signified. For the sign, he gave thanks for the effect; for the thing signified, he gave thanks for the passion. Which indicates that we should not only give thanks for good things, but for evils and adversities as well; in all things give thanks (1 Thess 5:18); to those who love God, all things work together unto good (Rom 8:28). Likewise, he gave thanks for the institution of this sacrament, because he brought this about by the divine power; hence, I cannot of myself do anything (John 5:30). This is why he gives thanks to God the Father; Father, I give you thanks that you have heard me (John 11:41). Which gives us an example, that if Christ gave thanks, who was equal to the Father, we should give thanks. Likewise, he gives thanks for the effect, because the effect is the salvation of the whole world. And he could only have brought this about by the divinity; it is the Spirit that quickens: the flesh profits nothing (John 6:64).

2197. There follows, and gave, that they might receive him in the sacrament. And by this he signified that the fruit of his passion should be ministered to others through others. Hence the apostles can be compared to an eagle’s young, of whom it says, as the eagle enticing her young to fly, and hovering over them (Deut 32:11).

2198. Then he enjoins its use. And

first, he sets out the use;

second, the words of the consecration of the blood;

third, he foretells the resurrection.

2199. He says therefore, drink, all of you, of this. Drink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved (Song 5:1). Hence it is signified that Christians can communicate in time and place.

2200. For this is my blood. These are the words of consecration. And notice that there is a difference between these words and those which the Church uses. The Church adds, this is the chalice. Likewise, where he says, of the new testament, the Church adds, of the new and eternal testament. And where he says, for many, the Church adds for you. So where does the Church get this form from? One should say that, as Dionysius says, the evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of the sacraments, but kept them as secrets; (Dionysius the Areopagite, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ch. 3, sect. 10.) hence they meant only to recount the history. So where does the Church get it from? From the apostles’ ordinance. Hence Paul said, and the rest I will set in order, when I come (1 Cor 11:34).

2201. But there is a question: why does he say, **this is my body **(Matt 26:26), or this is my blood? Why does he not say, this is converted into a body, or into blood? But there are two reasons. The first is that the forms of the sacraments should signify what they effect. What they effect is that the bread be changed into the body of Christ; but the ultimate effect is that the body comes to be, and so the ultimate effect is what should be signified. Therefore, what should be signified is that this is the body, and not that the bread is converted into the body.

2202. Now, in this form there is one thing similar to the old, and another thing dissimilar.

They are similar in that, as is written, when Moses had written the law, he sacrificed bulls, and took the blood, and said: this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you (Exod 24:8). Thus this blood was offered for the salvation of the people. Hebrews says, the high priest alone, once a year: not without blood, which he offers for his own, and the people’s ignorance (Heb 9:7).

But a difference shows up with regard to four things. First, in the fact that that was the blood of bulls, and this the blood of Christ; therefore this blood is efficacious for the remission of sins. For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of an heifer being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh: how much more will the blood of Christ . . . cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God? (Heb 9:13–14). Likewise, that blood was called the blood of the testament, but this is called the testament. Again, ‘testament’ is taken commonly and properly. Commonly, it is taken to mean any given deed, because it used to be that witnesses were brought in for everything done. ‘Testament’ is said properly when something is written at death, in accord with what the Apostle says, that a testament is confirmed at the death of the one who made it (Heb 9:16). Either way of speaking fits here, for a covenant was made there, and it was made with blood, for in ancient times when they made a covenant of peace, they showed blood, and this is why it was called the blood of the covenant.

Similarly, according as it is said with reference to the dead, in this way there was a certain pact between God and men in the old and in the new law, but in different ways. For the first one, namely the old law, was about temporal things, as it is clear that he promised them the land of the Amorites; this is why it was old, for it did not renew men, but rather aged them. But this testament is about heavenly things, and about lofty things. Hence above, do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt 4:17). This is why he says, of the New Testament, while it was said, this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you concerning all these words (Exod 24:8). I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah (Jer 31:31). Hence, for this is my blood of the New Testament, in which you should have confidence; having therefore, brethren, a confidence . . . by the blood of Christ (Heb 10:19). Likewise, it befits the meaning of testament regarding the dead; for the promise was confirmed through Christ’s death.

Likewise there is another difference, for this adds of the New and eternal Testament, which can be referred either to the eternal inheritance, or to Christ, who is eternal. Another difference is that in that one it says, which the Lord has made with you; hence that testament was restricted to those only, but this testament is also with the nations; he will sprinkle, namely with his blood, many nations (Isa 52:15). For many and for all, because if its sufficiency is considered, he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2). But if we consider the effect, it has effect only on those who are saved, and this is due to men’s fault. But the Church adds for you, i.e., the apostles, because they are the ministers of this blood, and it passes on through them to the nations.

Likewise, there is set down unto remission of sins, because the blood of the Old Testament could not remit sins.

2203. And I say. Here a consolation is set down, according to Chrysostom. (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, hom. 82.) For he had mentioned his blood being poured out, by which he indicated the passion, and so he consoles them, and foretells his glory. And it can be explained in four ways. Chrysostom explains it this way, that the Lord had foretold the passion, and so wanted to cheer them. From this time forward, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine, i.e., of wine, until that day. This kingdom names the day of the resurrection. At that time he received a new kingdom, i.e., in a new way. That he drank with them afterward is clear (Acts 9).

But why does it say, in a **new **way? Because he ate differently before and after: for before he ate out of necessity, but after the resurrection he ate not out of necessity but to demonstrate the truth of the resurrection.

Jerome speaks this way, that the vine signifies the Jewish people; (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew (CPL 0590), bk 26, par. 29.) for the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel (Isa 5:7); yet I planted you a chosen vineyard, all true seed (Jer 2:21).

And I say to you, from this time forward, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine, i.e., my soul will not rejoice over this people, until that day when I will drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. The kingdom signifies the present Church; new, i.e., renewed through faith, because then they will be converted, and then I will rejoice with them. For many have converted, and many will be converted.

Remigius explains it this way, and says that this should be referred to the Paschal ceremonies, that is: I will not celebrate the other ceremonies of this sort until the establishment of the Church, when I will rejoice over the renewal of the Church. (See Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea on Matthew c. 26, lect. 8.)

Augustine, this way: when he says, new, it is opposed to the old. (Augustine, Questions on the Gospels (CPL 0275) bk 1, q. 43.) Now, there are two sorts of oldness: that of punishment, and that of guilt, and this is passed down from Adam, as is said (Rom 5:12). Now, Christ had the oldness of punishment, not of guilt. Hence his simple unbound our double. He says therefore, I will not drink of the oldness of punishment until that day when I will drink it with you new, because he was going to lay aside that body, and take up the body glorified in the resurrection, and he promised the apostles that they also would take up their bodies again. And this signifies that they are not of a different nature, because the body which he will take up will be of the same nature, but of a different glory.